GOAT Discussions

(This thread is not about who is the GOAT. Rather it is about how these GOAT discussions are trending.)

It occurs to me that since Fed has overtaken Pete in the slams count and tied his 7 Wimbers titles, Sampras is seldom mentioned in the GOAT discussions any more.

Pete's reputation seems to have been largely based (by himself?) on his total slam count number and his seven Wimbledon titles.

Lately the discussion has been about Fed and Laver, or Hoad, or Gonzales or Rosewall, (or maybe Tilden being mentioned). It seems to be about (what I call) apples versus oranges, or players who are difficult to compare (as opposed to easy), because so much history has elapsed and conditions have changed so much.

I don't know whether this is correct, but I do think that Sampras has engineered his own irrelevance by putting so much emphasis on slam count totals, and not on other aspects of his record.

(This thread is not about who is the GOAT. Rather it is about how these GOAT discussions are trending.)

It occurs to me that since Fed has overtaken Pete in the slams count and tied his 7 Wimbers titles, Sampras is seldom mentioned in the GOAT discussions any more.

Pete's reputation seems to have been largely based(by himself?) on his total slam count number and his seven Wimbledon titles.

Lately the discussion has been about Fed and Laver, or Hoad, or Gonzales or Rosewall, (or maybe Tilden being mentioned). It seems to be about (what I call) apples versus oranges, or players who are difficult to compare (as opposed to easy) because so much history has elapsed and conditions have changed so much.

I don't know whether this is correct, but I do think that Sampras has engineered his own irrelevance by putting so much emphasis on slam count totals, and not on other aspects of his record.

Click to expand...

Certainly, his refusal to learn how to play on clay has hurt his ranking, because the greatest players, even Gonzales, won some important clay titles.

Hard to completely blame Pete - the counting of GS tourny wins was deemed a relevant criterion for GOAT status concurrently with his domination. I think it was largely media driven, and Pete played along with chasing the record. There was an ESPN article in 2000 or 2001 that discussed the chasing of the record and becoming the greatest ever. Pete also said something to the effect that he needed a FO to be considered. Oops.

I never considered Sampras to be the greatest player of all time, even when he held the grand slam title record and before Federer started dominating men's tennis.

Within the previous 20-30 years alone I always considered Laver to be greater, and I considered Borg to be at least Sampras's equal (I personally lean slightly towards Borg in that debate).

Tennis was rapidly losing popularity in the US and other countries in the 90s, compared to the golden age of the mid 70s to mid 80. At the height of Sampras's dominance in May 1994, Sports Illustrated ran the cover 'is tennis dying?', and the New York Times regularly had articles of a similar theme. The one superstar that men's tennis had, Agassi, didn't properly dedicate himself fully to the sport until 1998 (aside from one year in 1995). Sampras inadvertently helped kill the popularity of tennis by not being willing to help promote the sport.

I suspect that the ATP and the tennis media hyped up Sampras's pursuit of Emerson's grand slam title record (which Emmo himself didn't even know he held for decades) to generate some much needed interest and excitement in the sport.

I agree that at the time, this newfound interest in that record that was previously seen as irrelevant, helped boost Sampras's legacy upon his retirement. However since then Federer has come along and broken that record so quickly, and has Sampras well and truly beaten according to these 'modern' GOAT criteria that didn't exist before.

There are still cases to argue that Gonzales, Laver etc are greater than Federer (and vice versa). However there is no case whatsoever to argue that Sampras is greater given that Federer tops him in nearly every category, and that both players' CVs are judged by these modern criteria. Of course Sampras was an amazing player and easily one of the greatest players to have ever lived I must add.

I agree, that Sampras put too much emphasis on his majors record, instead of other records of him, which were better imo, his 6 year reign as year end Nr. 1, his 7 Wimbledons or his 12 wins at Wimbledon - US Open. For me the 14 majors looked always beatable, regarding the long absence and percentages between majors wins and participation of players like Tilden, Borg, Gonzalez, Rosewall or Laver.
But we should give Sampras his credit- as the modern Gonzalez, possibly the best fast court player of modern times on fast grass, fast hardcourt and indoor carpet. He was a big cat, with the deadly serve and great vertical movement.

(This thread is not about who is the GOAT. Rather it is about how these GOAT discussions are trending.)

It occurs to me that since Fed has overtaken Pete in the slams count and tied his 7 Wimbers titles, Sampras is seldom mentioned in the GOAT discussions any more.

Pete's reputation seems to have been largely based (by himself?) on his total slam count number and his seven Wimbledon titles.

Lately the discussion has been about Fed and Laver, or Hoad, or Gonzales or Rosewall, (or maybe Tilden being mentioned). It seems to be about (what I call) apples versus oranges, or players who are difficult to compare (as opposed to easy), because so much history has elapsed and conditions have changed so much.

I don't know whether this is correct, but I do think that Sampras has engineered his own irrelevance by putting so much emphasis on slam count totals, and not on other aspects of his record.

Click to expand...

Hoodjem,

I do think a lot of the GOAT discussions don't take into account the changing values of what is important in the tennis world and how superior a player is compared to his contemporaries. Even then I wonder if some subjectivity should be taken into account on whether the player may have had some stroke deficiencies. The formula for simply counting majors to analyze greatness is greatly flawed to me in an infinite amount of ways.

For example Bill Tilden is arguably the most dominant player of all time but he is behind in majors to a number of players. Is he an inferior player to them? Perhaps or perhaps not.

We don't have enough stats about the past in tennis unlike baseball in which we can compared teams on winning percentage or run differential among other things. People like Joe McCauley, Andrew Tas and Robert Geist has helped us tremendously in this area and hopefully we can get more information in the future.

May not be able to post for a while because a huge hurricane is coming my way and power may be out for more than a week. :shock:

Hoodjem, I understand your point about the new emphasis on "slam count" as a central measure with Sampras, although majors were always coveted. With Sampras, there was definitely a change in terms of the central criterion. Yet, I would argue that besides the fact that Sampras does not have the most majors, I still consider him to be one of the all time greats and an argument can be made for him to be right at the top. He of course excelled as a fast court player, but did not have great results on clay.

(This thread is not about who is the GOAT. Rather it is about how these GOAT discussions are trending.)

It occurs to me that since Fed has overtaken Pete in the slams count and tied his 7 Wimbers titles, Sampras is seldom mentioned in the GOAT discussions any more.

Pete's reputation seems to have been largely based (by himself?) on his total slam count number and his seven Wimbledon titles.

Lately the discussion has been about Fed and Laver, or Hoad, or Gonzales or Rosewall, (or maybe Tilden being mentioned). It seems to be about (what I call) apples versus oranges, or players who are difficult to compare (as opposed to easy), because so much history has elapsed and conditions have changed so much.

I don't know whether this is correct, but I do think that Sampras has engineered his own irrelevance by putting so much emphasis on slam count totals, and not on other aspects of his record.

Click to expand...

You are right. I like Pete but he overhyped his slam record WAY too much. That was never that impressive a record. Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, and possibly a few others, would all have more slams than even Federer currently has, let alone Sampras, had Open Era tennis been around then. His most impressive records were always his 7 Wimbledons (which he still shares, and IMO his 7 in 8 years is more impressive than Federer's 7 in 10) and his 6 straight year end #1st, along with his fabulous U.S Open record including 5 titles, 8 finals, and which showed amazing longevity at the event with 12 years spread of his first and last titles. However by building up his not that astounding slam mark so much, he indeed has rendered himself irrelevant by Federer breaking it. Federer meanwhile is overhyped and too easily coronated in GOAT debates due to not only his current player status, but thanks to Pete's overvaluing of his own slam mark. Federer has Pete to thank for much of his over the top GOAT coronation these days, LOL!

I agree, that Sampras put too much emphasis on his majors record, instead of other records of him, which were better imo, his 6 year reign as year end Nr. 1, his 7 Wimbledons or his 12 wins at Wimbledon - US Open. For me the 14 majors looked always beatable, regarding the long absence and percentages between majors wins and participation of players like Tilden, Borg, Gonzalez, Rosewall or Laver.
But we should give Sampras his credit- as the modern Gonzalez, possibly the best fast court player of modern times on fast grass, fast hardcourt and indoor carpet. He was a big cat, with the deadly serve and great vertical movement.

Click to expand...

ITA on all and I also agree Sampras is the best fast court player of modern times. Peak to peak he would beat Federer more often than not on all of fast grass, fast hardcourt, and indoor carpet.

Tennis was rapidly losing popularity in the US and other countries in the 90s, compared to the golden age of the mid 70s to mid 80. At the height of Sampras's dominance in May 1994, Sports Illustrated ran the cover 'is tennis dying?', and the New York Times regularly had articles of a similar theme.

Click to expand...

Sports Illustrated and the like always complained when someone other than their favorites was dominating or even on top. One example of this is people complained in the Seles absence due to stabbing years it was boring since Graf was too dominant, and that she had no real rival. Yet Graf won only 6 of 10 and 6 of 9 slams played during that period. Seles won 7 of 9 and 7 of 8 slams played from 91-early 93 before the stabbing. So Seles was in fact much more dominant the 2 and half years before the stabbing as Graf in the 2 and a half while Seles was out. Yet despite this obvious fact oddly these same people didnt complain about tennis being boring, Seles being too dominant, or Seles having no real rival (any talk of a great rivalry with Graf that period is BS as they only even played 5 matches and 3 slam matches in nearly 3 years) prior to the stabbing.

Likewise Sports Illustrated had no problems whatsoever with Navratilova's staggering 83/84 dominance, losing 3 matches in 2 years, and winning 13 matches in a row at one point, most embarassingly one sided, vs her chief "rival" Chris Evert. Nor did they have an problems with Serena's 02/03 dominance, including winning her only 5 meetings, all 5 in slam finals, vs her chief "rival" Venus. They did however complain about the dominance of Hingis in 1997, and even of Henin in late 2003/early 2004 and 2007.

So players they deem boring or just dont enjoy for whatever reason like Sampras, Graf, Lendl, Hingis they complain about being too dominant and having no real rival, even in ridiculous cases when Graf had been far outdone by Sanchez most of 94/early 95 and lost her #1 ranking to her, and they still claimed she had no rival. While players they do enjoy or find more interesting like Seles, Navratilova, McEnroe, they say absolutely nothing against even when being more dominant and having less of a real rival than the aforementioned group.

^^ True but Sampras's grand slams finals in which he wasn't playing Agassi generally got pretty poor TV ratings in the US. Despite being American I doubt Sampras was anywhere as big a star or as well recognised in the US as the non-American Borg was.

The All-German Wimbledon final in 1991 got much better TV ratings than the all American final featuring Sampras. Given that Wimbledon takes place during a relative quiet period during the American sporting calendar, the TV ratings that a player generates from their Wimbledon finals in the US is a pretty good measure of how big a star they are there. And Sampras's first 5 Wimbledon finals before he faced the genuine star Agassi in 1999 all did pretty poorly.

Plus Sampras took Sports Illustrated pretty seriously and was offended when they ignored his 6th consecutive year end no. 1 finish in 1998 and especially his record 13th slam title at Wimbledon in 2000.

I agree that we have Sampras to blame (even though Lendl near the end of his career actually started it) for this 'only grand slams matter' attitude and increased focus on 'slam counting'.

His haul of 12 Wimbledon/US Open titles would probably have received even greater praise if he had played during Connors's time in the 70s for instance, when many people considered those events to be the two blue chip majors.

BTW did someone seriously post what you have in your signature. LOL I couldn't stop laughing when I read it.

Yet, I would argue that besides the fact that Sampras does not have the most majors, I still consider him to be one of the all time greats and an argument can be made for him to be right at the top. He of course excelled as a fast court player, but did not have great results on clay.

Click to expand...

No argument from me here.

(Sampras is certainly in my top-10 GOAT-list. But his paucity of clay-court titles prevents his higher placement, IMO.)

You are right. I like Pete but he overhyped his slam record WAY too much. That was never that impressive a record. Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, and possibly a few others, would all have more slams than even Federer currently has, let alone Sampras, had Open Era tennis been around then. His most impressive records were always his 7 Wimbledons (which he still shares, and IMO his 7 in 8 years is more impressive than Federer's 7 in 10) and his 6 straight year end #1st, along with his fabulous U.S Open record including 5 titles, 8 finals, and which showed amazing longevity at the event with 12 years spread of his first and last titles. However by building up his not that astounding slam mark so much, he indeed has rendered himself irrelevant by Federer breaking it. Federer meanwhile is overhyped and too easily coronated in GOAT debates due to not only his current player status, but thanks to Pete's overvaluing of his own slam mark. Federer has Pete to thank for much of his over the top GOAT coronation these days, LOL!

Click to expand...

Pure speculation and apples to oranges in the extreme. For example, if Open Era tennis had existed in, say, the 30s, how many majors would Laver have won from '60-'62, competing against the best pros?

Sometimes i think, if reading certain post and posters, that Rod Laver never won a thing in his career. Something of a ghost. Must be a dream, that he won 200 events in his life, that he was in all major finals (including pro majors) in the majors he played in the 60s, bar 4, that he won 11 out of 19 classic majors played in the 60s, that he had the best amateur year of all time, the best pro year and the best open year in history, that he had clear positive records against all contemporaries, most of them hall of famers, and even if they were younger 6 or 7 years. Must be a dream.

Sometimes i think, if reading certain post and posters, that Rod Laver never won a thing in his career. Something of a ghost. Must be a dream, that he won 200 events in his life, that he was in all major finals (including pro majors) in the majors he played in the 60s, bar 4, that he won 11 out of 19 classic majors played in the 60s, that he had the best amateur year of all time, the best pro year and the best open year in history, that he had clear positive records against all contemporaries, most of them hall of famers, and even if they were younger 6 or 7 years. Must be a dream.

Click to expand...

Sometimes I think, if reading certain posts and posters, that Rod Laver's career is beyond scrutiny. I mean, why even bother discussing it at all? Everyone who ever lived knows he's the best player ever, and all GOAT discussions, including this thread, are moot.

Sometimes I think, if reading certain posts and posters, that Rod Laver's career is beyond scrutiny. I mean, why even bother discussing it at all? Everyone who ever lived knows he's the best player ever, and all GOAT discussions, including this thread, are moot.

Click to expand...

Of course Laver's career is not beyond scrutiny but as Urban did point out he certainly has a huge amount of pluses in so many areas.

But you can say the same for Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Borg among others.

Sometimes i think, if reading certain post and posters, that Rod Laver never won a thing in his career. Something of a ghost. Must be a dream, that he won 200 events in his life, that he was in all major finals (including pro majors) in the majors he played in the 60s, bar 4, that he won 11 out of 19 classic majors played in the 60s, that he had the best amateur year of all time, the best pro year and the best open year in history, that he had clear positive records against all contemporaries, most of them hall of famers, and even if they were younger 6 or 7 years. Must be a dream.

Click to expand...

It's simply that some of these posters want to defend their hero by putting down Rod Laver who is the historical opponent in their minds for GOAThood.

This poster keeps writing that Laver wouldn't have won 200 tournaments if there was not a Pro/Amateur divide and yet I pointe out that Laver won 76 tournaments after the Open Era started. Laver was to turn 30 (on the downside of his career in my opinion) in 1968, the first year of the Open Era. Laver also won 45 tournaments in the first three years of the Open Era. I see no reason why Laver would not have won around 200 tournament no matter what the circumstances were.

First of all even Ken Rosewall mentioned that the average level of tennis was lower in the Open Era as opposed to when he played on the Old Pro Tour. Second, some tournaments that Laver may have played in might not include greats like Rosewall, Gimeno, Hoad or Gonzalez. An example of this could be like the Australian in the late 1970's to early 1980's in which the field was large but the quality of the players was not.

Back to topic It's clear to me that the system of counting majors is extremely flawed. First of all it's a fixed number and never takes into account the amount of majors played. As many pointed out the Sampras past record of 14 was so weak it was laughable and yet so many in the press wrote it may never be broken. What was not mentioned was that Sampras played 52 majors to win 14. Borg, to use him as an example play 27 and won 11. Borg's record in majors to me is far more impressive. It's even more impression when you consider that he only played the Australian once and it was on grass in those days.

The conditions have changed now that all the players play all the majors every year if it is physically possible.

If we only count majors then what happens to the rest of the tennis year when player do not play majors. Is it important? Is it unimportant? Of course it's important. If there was a scenario in which a player won two majors in a year and failed miserably in every tournament he played in and another player won 15 of 20 strong tournaments played but didn't win a major I would think the latter player had a better year. Yet some the simplistic thinking of some people would consider the former player to have a better year.

Of course Laver's career is not beyond scrutiny but as Urban did point out he certainly has a huge amount of pluses in so many areas.

But you can say the same for Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Borg among others.

Click to expand...

I thought I had raised a fair point of discussion about the how it wouldn't have been so easy for Laver to rack up 20+ GS tournament wins had Open Era started much earlier, based on the illogical "Laver's career was X and he won Z, but if his career was Y, he still would have won Z" post. Instead, I got a derisive and didactic recitation of Laver's résumé, not unlike TMF's incessant repostings of Federer's list of achievements.

This forum is supposed to be a more mature discussion of tennis and historical cognizance. Yet anytime Laver gets put under the microscope, it goes to the triarii who absolutely refuse to accept critique of the man. Kudos to hoodjem for actually engaging in a dialogue.

Federer is routinely nitpicked for his H2H with Rafa, how he wouldn't have won the FO if Rafa was healthy, etc. - and fairly so. Anyone with that staggering of a career should be looked at, dissected, and argued about. Laver is no exception. Is it at all possible he could have won 20 majors entirely in the Open Era? Sure. Do I personally believe it? No.

I'm not TMF. I'm not asking questions simply to denigrate Laver's achievements. He's one of the greatest ever, possibly the greatest. I just think some of the posters here need to be a little more open-minded when talking about Laver.

I thought I had raised a fair point of discussion about the how it wouldn't have been so easy for Laver to rack up 20+ GS tournament wins had Open Era started much earlier, based on the illogical "Laver's career was X and he won Z, but if his career was Y, he still would have won Z" post. Instead, I got a derisive and didactic recitation of Laver's résumé, not unlike TMF's incessant repostings of Federer's list of achievements.

This forum is supposed to be a more mature discussion of tennis and historical cognizance. Yet anytime Laver gets put under the microscope, it goes to the triarii who absolutely refuse to accept critique of the man. Kudos to hoodjem for actually engaging in a dialogue.

Federer is routinely nitpicked for his H2H with Rafa, how he wouldn't have won the FO if Rafa was healthy, etc. - and fairly so. Anyone with that staggering of a career should be looked at, dissected, and argued about. Laver is no exception. Is it at all possible he could have won 20 majors entirely in the Open Era? Sure. Do I personally believe it? No.

I'm not TMF. I'm not asking questions simply to denigrate Laver's achievements. He's one of the greatest ever, possibly the greatest. I just think some of the posters here need to be a little more open-minded when talking about Laver.

Click to expand...

Totally understandable and logical post. Never thought you were putting down Laver. I think you're one of the most reasonable and best posters here.

Totally understandable and logical post. Never thought you were putting down Laver. I think you're one of the most reasonable and best posters here.

Click to expand...

I appreciate that. I think quite a few in the FPP section are excellent and very knowledgeable posters, including yourself, hoodjem, and krosero. Biased, yes, but who isn't? I guess like any other forums, some of the posters (see above) leave a lot to be desired.

Pure speculation and apples to oranges in the extreme. For example, if Open Era tennis had existed in, say, the 30s, how many majors would Laver have won from '60-'62, competing against the best pros?

Click to expand...

Of course he would lose some slams from 60-62 in that scenario, but he would gain many more slams in 64-67 when he would have been the dominant player and won most of them, than he would have lost from 60-62. All that is already taken into account when people do their estimates, and the estimates of virtually all experts have Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales all winning 18 or more.

Of course he would lose some slams from 60-62 in that scenario, but he would gain many more slams in 64-67 when he would have been the dominant player and won most of them, than he would have lost from 60-62. All that is already taken into account when people do their estimates, and the estimates of virtually all experts have Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales all winning 18 or more.

Click to expand...

Which experts? I have already extolled the virtues of some of the better posters here, but they hardly qualify. I'd need a source.

Besides, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. When Laver wins a Slam event, it comes at the expense of Rosewall winning one, and vice versa. If you're not counting the majors they already have in the bank before becoming pros, you're creating a situation in which no major comes easily. I don't a scenario in which ALL of them end up with 18+ major wins. You're also discounting the possibility of upsets by other players who would have been around at the time, such as Ashe, who won right away after the start of the Open Era, Newcombe, who proved his worth as a post-Amateur Era pro, winning 5 major titles after the start of the Open Era.

Of course he would lose some slams from 60-62 in that scenario, but he would gain many more slams in 64-67 when he would have been the dominant player and won most of them, than he would have lost from 60-62. All that is already taken into account when people do their estimates, and the estimates of virtually all experts have Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales all winning 18 or more.

Click to expand...

Plus he did not have a YEC or WCT final like Federer had so, take all Fed YEC titles when comparing, please

Of course he would lose some slams from 60-62 in that scenario, but he would gain many more slams in 64-67 when he would have been the dominant player and won most of them, than he would have lost from 60-62. All that is already taken into account when people do their estimates, and the estimates of virtually all experts have Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales all winning 18 or more.

Click to expand...

I my estimation the three you mentioned plus Tilden would make more than 18 open era majors, Tilden even leading the field with about 25 to 30...

Which experts? I have already extolled the virtues of some of the better posters here, but they hardly qualify. I'd need a source.

Besides, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. When Laver wins a Slam event, it comes at the expense of Rosewall winning one, and vice versa. If you're not counting the majors they already have in the bank before becoming pros, you're creating a situation in which no major comes easily. I don't a scenario in which ALL of them end up with 18+ major wins. You're also discounting the possibility of upsets by other players who would have been around at the time, such as Ashe, who won right away after the start of the Open Era, Newcombe, who proved his worth as a post-Amateur Era pro, winning 5 major titles after the start of the Open Era.

Click to expand...

Carsomyr, You just should go to the record books and look at the pro majors won by Laver, Rosewall and others. That's a good measure for hypothetical open majors.

It's true that Laver and Rosewall would "steal" major titles from each other but they were so strong and steady that they still would have won enough to reach that 18 majors mark. In fact Laver has won 19 majors and Rosewall 23.

If you consider both amateur and pro majors you can see that very seldom an outsider has won a major. Only Mal Anderson is an example for a winning outsider.

Newcombe won open majors only when Laver and Rosewall were on decline. And yet Laver and Rosewall plus old Gimeno won eight out of the first ten open era majors where they participated!

Carsomyr, You just should go to the record books and look at the pro majors won by Laver, Rosewall and others. That's a good measure for hypothetical open majors.

Click to expand...

I'm aware of how many pro majors they won, and no, that's not a very good indicator of how many Grand Slams tournaments they would have won. It's apples and oranges.

It's true that Laver and Rosewall would "steal" major titles from each other but they were so strong and steady that they still would have won enough to reach that 18 majors mark.

If you consider both amateur and pro majors you can see that very seldom an outsider has won a major. Only Mal Anderson is an example for a winning outsider.

Click to expand...

Aren't you the guy who says that Federer and Nadal are weak-era champions? If Rosewall and Laver are the only ones winning anything, how is that better, exactly?

Newcombe won open majors only after Laver and Rosewall were on decline. And yet Laver and Rosewall plus old Gimeno won eight out of the first ten open era majors where they participated!

Click to expand...

Newcombe was still playing amongst the amateurs in 1967. Given all the speculation that Laver would have adapted sooner if the Open Era had occurred many years earlier, I think it's fair to assume that players like Newcombe and Ashe would have, too.

I my estimation the three you mentioned plus Tilden would make more than 18 open era majors, Tilden even leading the field with about 25 to 30...

Click to expand...

If the weightening factor is taken into account, Rosewall,Gonzales,Laver and a healthy Hoad would have like 30 majors each in this extremely weak era..only that they would have to play themselves again, so...

Of course he would lose some slams from 60-62 in that scenario, but he would gain many more slams in 64-67 when he would have been the dominant player and won most of them, than he would have lost from 60-62. All that is already taken into account when people do their estimates, and the estimates of virtually all experts have Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales all winning 18 or more.

Click to expand...

Okay, I'll play this game. Let us only consider the pro-level Slams, you can't have both the Amateur Grand Slams and the pro-Slams.

Number of pro-Slams every year = 3
Laver won = 8
If there were 4 pro-Slams, how many would Laver have won, going by the same win ratio (which is more than generous) : [8 x (4/3)] = [32/3] = 11 (again being generous)

Grand Slams won in the Open Era = 5

Total pro-level Slams won, had he had 4 pro-Slams every year is estimatedly 11+5=16. 16<17.

Carsomyr, You just should go to the record books and look at the pro majors won by Laver, Rosewall and others. That's a good measure for hypothetical open majors.

It's true that Laver and Rosewall would "steal" major titles from each other but they were so strong and steady that they still would have won enough to reach that 18 majors mark. In fact Laver has won 19 majors and Rosewall 23.

If you consider both amateur and pro majors you can see that very seldom an outsider has won a major. Only Mal Anderson is an example for a winning outsider.

Newcombe won open majors only when Laver and Rosewall were on decline. And yet Laver and Rosewall plus old Gimeno won eight out of the first ten open era majors where they participated!

Right. But you forget on the other hand, that the old pros did not have Australian Pro Championships. Laver would have won a few of them.

Furthermore, Laver would have been the favourite if he could have participated in the Australian "open" 1968 champ.s, the Aussie 1970 and 1972 events, the 1970, 1971 and 1972 French Open (co-favourite with Rosewall), the 1972 Wimbledon and the 1971 US Open. These make up for "losing" his amateur titles...

Right. But you forget on the other hand, that the old pros did not have Australian Pro Championships. Laver would have won a few of them.

Furthermore, Laver would have been the favourite if he could have participated in the Australian "open" 1968 champ.s, the Aussie 1970 and 1972 events, the 1970, 1971 and 1972 French Open (co-favourite with Rosewall), the 1972 Wimbledon and the 1971 US Open. These make up for "losing" his amateur titles...

Click to expand...

I like to see a Rosewall supporter that gives Laver full credit.Good for you, bobbyone.

I like to see a Rosewall supporter that gives Laver full credit.Good for you, bobbyone.[/QUOTE

Thanks, kiki.

Even though I'm a Rosewall fan that does not mean at all that I diminish the great achievements of the other greats! And Laver is arguably the greatest of all!

I never was a biassed Rosewall fanatic as NDQ and Limpinhitter have insinuated.

In my calculations Laver would have won 19 open majors, Rosewall 24 , Gonzalez 25 and Tilden 27 or even more.

Laver has achieved the very greatest feat in winning three Grand Slams.

These four are my GOAT candidates because of their huge accomplishments, their playind strength and their "genius" game (touch and skills).

And, to do Dan a favour, I do believe that Hoad on his best day would have beaten all of them.

Click to expand...

This is exactly my opinion, too.Hoad, on a good day is arguably the best ever tennis machine.I don´t think there has ever been a better quarter than that of 63 or 64, with laver and Rosewall at their peak, and Gonzales and Hoad, for different reasons, not at their peak but able to beat anybody on their good days.

I liked a lot the big four of the early 80´s and the early 90´s, but I cannot immagine more talent per square inch than that of 63 to 65.

Myself I admire Laver but I have a great feeling for Rosewall´s game.it is hard for me, it is like being asked if you love mom more than dad or the other way back, because I have had the privilge of watching both Laver and Rosewall and it is like listening to the best ever R&R band and the best ever jaz Quarter.

Laver was Led Zeppelin and Rosewall the Miles Davis quarter.I enjoy both.

This is exactly my opinion, too.Hoad, on a good day is arguably the best ever tennis machine.I don´t think there has ever been a better quarter than that of 63 or 64, with laver and Rosewall at their peak, and Gonzales and Hoad, for different reasons, not at their peak but able to beat anybody on their good days.

I liked a lot the big four of the early 80´s and the early 90´s, but I cannot immagine more talent per square inch than that of 63 to 65.

Myself I admire Laver but I have a great feeling for Rosewall´s game.it is hard for me, it is like being asked if you love mom more than dad or the other way back, because I have had the privilge of watching both Laver and Rosewall and it is like listening to the best ever R&R band and the best ever jaz Quarter.

Laver was Led Zeppelin and Rosewall the Miles Davis quarter.I enjoy both.

Click to expand...

As I am a classic fan, Laver and Rosewall are to me like Schubert and Beethoven...Tilden and Gonzalez like Bach and Mozart...

Something that trully wonders me is how in such a small window of time (10 to 15 years) emerged numerous goat contenders (Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Hoad, Kramer, etc), at least according to some posters here. So we have to believe that in a sport that has a history of over 150 years, the majority of the greatest players were from the 50`s and 60`s. Yes, this sounds pretty logical if you ask me. Even more logical taking into account how much has "decreased" the number of players worldwide in the last 50 years....gimme a break, would you? For the record, i do believe that the best from any era would find the way to excel on any other era, but this "all things from the past were better" kind of reasoning is getting beyond ridiculous. You won`t win a debate against a 5 year old with this crap

Right. But you forget on the other hand, that the old pros did not have Australian Pro Championships. Laver would have won a few of them.

Furthermore, Laver would have been the favourite if he could have participated in the Australian "open" 1968 champ.s, the Aussie 1970 and 1972 events, the 1970, 1971 and 1972 French Open (co-favourite with Rosewall), the 1972 Wimbledon and the 1971 US Open. These make up for "losing" his amateur titles...

Click to expand...

I accounted for the dearth of the 4th pro-Slam in my previous post, the one before my post in response to yours.

Something that trully wonders me is how in such a small window of time (10 to 15 years) emerged numerous goat contenders (Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Hoad, Kramer, etc), at least according to some posters here. So we have to believe that in a sport that has a history of over 150 years, the majority of the greatest players were from the 50`s and 60`s. Yes, this sounds pretty logical if you ask me. Even more logical taking into account how much has "decreased" the number of players worldwide in the last 50 years....gimme a break, would you? For the record, i do believe that the best from any era would find the way to excel on any other era, but this "all things from the past were better" kind of reasoning is getting beyond ridiculous. You won`t win a debate against a 5 year old with this crap

Click to expand...

The only reason they're all held up on a pedestal is because they had longevity (in a much less athletic sport than now) and because each of them has a ton of Grand Slams and/or pro-Slams (thanks to split fields with limited competition).

The only reason they're all held up on a pedestal is because they had longevity (in a much less athletic sport than now) and because each of them has a ton of Grand Slams and/or pro-Slams (thanks to split fields with limited competition).

Click to expand...

Gonzales was the best player for 8 years. Laver was the best player in the world for 7 years. Hoad was considered unbeatable when he played his best tennis. Kramer revolutionised tennis, considerably widening the quality gap between the top professional players and the top amateur players from 1948 onwards. They are on a pedestal because they were that good.

Why are you so obssesed with that.Is the closet too locked for some people to come off it?

Click to expand...

Because it seriously offends me when idiots try and justify a player's superiority based on sexual preference, which is exactly what you tried to do. I was also extremely upset at another poster openly expressed his hatred for Jews. I am neither Jewish nor homosexual, but accusing players and other posters of such as if it were some insult expresses an incredible backwardness of thinking I can only attribute to you, kiki. Congratulations.